NIMBY

An airport is a typical example of a development that can cause a NIMBY reaction: though locals may benefit from improved transport links and new jobs, they may oppose it with objections to the noise, pollution and traffic it will generate.

NIMBY (an acronym for the phrase "Not In My Back Yard"[1][2]), or Nimby (as a word, instead of an acronym),[3] is a pejorative characterization of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them (or, in some cases, because the development involves controversial or potentially dangerous technology) often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away. The residents are often called Nimbys and their state of mind is called Nimbyism.

The NIMBY concept may also be applied to people who advocate some proposal (e.g., budget cuts, tax increases, layoffs, immigration or energy conservation) but oppose implementing it in a way that might affect their lives or require any sacrifice on their part.

The claimed reasons against these developments vary, and some are given below.

Increased traffic: More jobs, more housing or more stores correlates to increased traffic on local streets. Industrial facilities such as warehouses, factories, or landfills often increase the volume of truck traffic.

Harm to locally owned small businesses: The development of a big box store may provide too much competition to a locally owned store; similarly, the construction of a new road may make the older road less travelled, leading to a loss of business for property owners. This can lead to excessive relocation costs, or to loss of respected local businesses.

Loss of residential property value: Homes near an undesirable development may be less desirable for potential buyers. The lost revenue from property taxes may, or may not, be offset by increased revenue from the project.

Light pollution: Projects that operate at night, or that include security lighting (such as street lights in a parking lot), may be accused of causing light pollution.

Noise pollution: In addition to the noise of traffic, a project may inherently be noisy. This is a common objection to wind power, airports, roads, and many industrial facilities, but also stadiums, festivals, and night clubs which are particularly noisy at night when locals want to sleep.[11]

Visual blight and failure to "blend in" with the surrounding architecture: The proposed project might be ugly or particularly large, or cast a shadow over an area due to its height.[12]

Loss of a community's small-town feel: Proposals that might result in new people moving into the community, such as a plan to build many new houses, are often claimed to change the community's character.

Strain of public resources and schools: This reason is given for any increase in the local area's population, as additional school facilities might be needed for the additional children, but particularly to projects that might result in certain kinds of people joining the community, such as a group home for people with disabilities, or immigrants.

Disproportionate benefit to non-locals: The project appears to benefit distant people, such as investors (in the case of commercial projects like factories or big-box stores) or people from neighboring areas (in the case of regional government projects, such as airports, highways, sewage treatment, or landfills).

Increases in crime: This is usually applied to projects that are perceived as attracting or employing low-skill workers or racial minorities, as well as projects that cater to people who are thought to often commit crimes, such as the mentally ill, the poor, and drug addicts. Additionally, certain types of projects, such as pubs or medical marijuana dispensaries, might be perceived as directly increasing the amount of crime in the area.

Risk of an (environmental) disaster, such as with drilling operations, chemical industry, dams,[13] or nuclear power plants.

Generally, many NIMBY objections are guessed or feared, because objections are more likely to be successful before the construction start. It is often too late to object to the project after its completion, since new additions are unlikely to be reversed.

People in an area affected by plans sometimes form an organization which can collect money and organize the objection activities. NIMBYists can hire a lawyer to do formal appeals, and contact media to gain public support for their case.

The Oxford English Dictionary identifies the acronym's earliest use as being in 1980 in the Christian Science Monitor, although even there the author indicates the term is already used in the hazardous waste industry.[14][15] The concept behind the term, that of locally organized resistance to unwanted land uses, is likely to have originated earlier. One suggestion is it emerged in the 1950s.[16]

NIMBY and its derivative terms NIMBYism, NIMBYs, and NIMBYists, refer implicitly to debates of development generally or to a specific case. As such, their use is inherently contentious. The term is usually applied to opponents of a development, implying that they have narrow, selfish, or myopic views. Its use is often pejorative.[18]

The term Not in My Neighborhood (or NIMN) is also frequently used.[19] "NIMN" additionally refers to legislative actions or private agreements made with the sole purpose of maintaining racial identity within a particular neighborhood or residential area by forcefully keeping members of other races from moving into the area.[20] In that regard, "Not in My Neighborhood," by author and journalist Antero Pietila, describes the toll NIMN politics had on housing conditions in Baltimore throughout the 20th century and the systemic, racially based citywide separation it caused.[21]

Opposition to certain developments as inappropriate anywhere in the world is characterised by the acronym NIABY ("Not In Anyone's Backyard"). The building of nuclear power plants, for example, is often subject to NIABY concerns.[22]

NAMBI ("Not Against My Business or Industry") is used as a label for any business concern that expresses umbrage with actions or policy that threaten that business, whereby they are believed to be complaining about the principle of the action or policy only for their interests alone and not for all similar business concerns who would equally suffer from the actions or policies.[22] The term serves as a criticism of the kind of outrage that business expresses when disingenuously portraying its protest to be for the benefit of all other businesses. Such a labelling would occur, for example, when opposition expressed by a business involved in urban development is challenged by activists – causing the business to in turn protest and appealing for support from fellow businesses lest they also find themselves challenged where they seek urban development. This term also serves as a rhetorical counter to NIMBY. Seen as an equivalent to NIMBY by those opposing the business or industry in question.

BANANA is an acronym for "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything" (or "Anyone").[23][24] The term is most often used to criticize the ongoing opposition of certain advocacy groups to land development.[25] The apparent opposition of some activists to every instance of proposed development suggests that they seek a complete absence of new growth. The term is commonly used within the context of planning in the United Kingdom. The Sunderland City Council lists the term on their online dictionary of jargon.[26]

PIBBY is an acronym for "Place In Blacks' Back Yard", an instance of racist rhetoric. This principle indicates that the people with social, racial, and economic privileges object to a development in their own back yards, and if the objectionable item must be built, then it should be built so that its perceived harms disproportionately affect poor, socially disadvantaged people. Economically disadvantaged people might not want to hire a lawyer to appeal the right way, or might have more immediate troubles than a new nearby construction project. The environmental justice movement has critiqued Nimbyism as a form of environmental racism. Robert D. Bullard, Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, has argued that official responses to NIMBY phenomena have led to the PIBBY principle.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]

FRUIT is an acronym for "Fear of Revitalization Urban-Infill and Towers". The word FRUIT or FRUITs is a play on words in support of the acronym BANANAs. First used in a development industry article in Vancouver to refer to allegedly irrational local opponents (fruit cakes, fruit loops or just fruits) of well-planned developments.[35]

SOBBY is an acronym for "Some Other Bugger's Back Yard" and refers to the state of mind which agrees that a particular project may be desirable and perhaps necessary – but only if it is placed somewhere else.[36]

Although often used rather pejoratively, the use of the concept NIMBY and similar terms have been critiqued. For instance, the term is frequently used to dismiss groups as selfish or ill-informed, yet these same groups may have virtues that are overlooked.[37]

Frequently argued debate points in favor of development include higher employment, tax revenue, marginal cost of remote development, safety, and environmental benefits. Proponents of development may accuse locals of egotism, elitism, parochialism, drawbridge mentality, racism and anti-diversity, the inevitability of criticism, and misguided or unrealistic claims of prevention of urban sprawl. If people who don't want to be disturbed see the general need of an establishment, such as an airport, they generally suggest another location. But seen from society's perspective, the other location might not be better, since people living there get disturbed instead.[38]

Those labeled as NIMBYs may have a variety of motivations and may be unified only because they oppose a particular project. For example, some may oppose any significant change or development, regardless of type, purpose, or origin. Others, if the project is seen as being imposed by outsiders, may hold strong principles of self-governance, local sovereignty, local autonomy, and home rule. These people believe that local people should have the final choice, and that any project affecting the local people should clearly benefit themselves, rather than corporations with distant investors or central governments.[39] Still others may object to a particular project because of its nature, e.g., opposing a nuclear power plant over fear of radiation, but accepting a local waste management facility as a municipal necessity.

In July 2012, residents of Kings County rallied against a bylaw, developed over three years of consultation and hearings, allowing wind generators to be constructed nearby.[40] A similar theme arose in September 2009, where residents there rallied against a wind generator in Digby Neck, Nova Scotia.[41] In January 2011, residents of Lawrencetown, NS openly opposed a cell tower being built.[42] A proposed development of downtown Dartmouth in August 2012 was also contested by residents.[43] In February 2013, some residents of Lunenburg County opposed wind farms being built in the area, saying, "It’s health and it’s property devaluation" and "This is an industrial facility put in the middle of rural Nova Scotia. It does not belong there."[44]

In March 2013, some residents of the community of Blockhouse opposed the building and development of a recycling plant, referred to by one business owner as a "dump." The plant would offer 75 jobs to the community of roughly 5,900 people.[45] In the same month, the municipal councilors of Chester, Nova Scotia, approved the building of wind turbines in the area in a 6-1 vote, despite some local opposition.[46]

In the affluent English village of Ashtead, Surrey, which lies on the outskirts of London, residents objected in 2007[47] to the conversion of a large, £1.7 million residential property into a family support centre for relatives of wounded British service personnel. The house was to be purchased by a registered charity, SSAFA Forces Help.[47][48][49] Local residents objected to the proposal out of fear of increased traffic and noise, as well as the possibility of an increased threat of terrorism. They also contended that the SSAFA charity is actually a business, thereby setting an unwelcome precedent.[50] Local newspapers ran articles titled "Nimby neighbours' war with wounded soldiers' families" and "No Heroes in my Backyard."

Ex-servicemen and several members of the British general public organised a petition in support of SSAFA, and even auctioned the "Self Respect of Ashtead" on eBay.[51]

Particularly in the run up to the final decision on the route of the high-speed railway known as High Speed 2, BBC News Online reported that many residents of Conservative constituencies were launching objections to the HS2 route based on the effects it would have on them, whilst also showing concerns that HS2 is unlikely to have a societal benefit at a macro level under the current economic circumstances.[52][53] Likewise, Labour MP Natascha Engel—through whose constituency the line will pass—offered a "passionate defence of nimbyism" in the House of Commons, with regards to the effects the line would have on home- and business-owning constituents.[54] HS2 has also been characterised by residents of the Chilterns and Camden making arguments against the supposed lack of a business case for the line, often as a smokescreen for NIMBYism. On the 17th of March 2014, it was announced that Camden's NIMBYs were successful in their campaign to derail the HS1-HS2 link railway [1].

In November 2007 a consultation process began for the building of a new third runway and a sixth terminal and it was controversially[55] approved on 15 January 2009 by UK Government ministers.[56] The project was then cancelled on 12 May 2010 by the Cameron Government.[57]

Heathrow Airport has a CAA Public Use Aerodrome Licence (Number P527) that allows flights for the public transport of passengers or for flying instruction.[58]

The airport is owned by CAFCO (Coventry) Limited, a joint venture between Howard Holdings plc[59] and Convergence-AFCO Holdings Limited (CAFCOHL), and in June 2007 had its application to build permanent terminal and passenger facilities turned down by the UK government due to public pressure.[60][61][62][63][64][65]

When Christian Zheng Sheng College, a correctional school for young drug addicts, opened in 1998, several people called it an eyesore. In June 2009, residents of Mui Wo voiced objection when they announced they are planning to move their campus into an empty school building there.

In 2001, when the leprosy prevention law was ruled unconstitutional, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Welfare, and the National Diet published statements of apology to leprosy patients and their families. Several prefectural governors made apologies at public sanatoriums.

Wealthy residents of southern Orange County, CA defeated a local measure that proposed to convert the decommissioned El Toro Marine Base into a commercial airport, claiming that the airport would be "unsafe" during landings and take-offs as well as create air quality issues. The real issue was the FAA planned the flight paths for the airport over expensive neighborhoods of the south Orange County and residents feared that their property values would decrease[citation needed]. The airport proposal, however, was strongly supported by Northern Orange County residents. The defeat of the local measure resulted in the creation of the Orange County Great Park.

National, state and local environmentalists, historic preservationists and long time residents of South Pasadena, California have been successfully opposing the completion of the highly controversial State Route 710 through the cities of Los Angeles (El Sereno), South Pasadena and Pasadena for over 60 years. There has been a federal injunction in place for 41 years stopping construction of the surface freeway. USC and UCLA urban and transportation planning students study this 80-year-old controversy because it's a classic example of sustained grass-roots opposition to a government proposal.[citation needed]

Now and for over a decade, a struggle has been brewing in San Francisco, California between the voting public and the influx of young professionals and tech workers. With no room to expand, construction companies can only build up in order to meet the increasing housing demand. However, NIMBYism has prevented high rise construction from spreading in San Francisco, citing restrictions on buildings' shadows and the dramatic changes proposed to the waterfront skyline.[67] The opposition argues that new construction will increase the supply of luxury housing without creating affordable housing, thus raising the average rent while by attracting a wealthier population to the city of San Francisco and forcing middle and lower income families out of the city.[68]

Similar to the situation in Nantucket Sound, Mass., a minority of residents in St. Lucie County, Florida have vehemently opposed the construction of wind turbines in the county. The construction of the wind turbines is strongly supported by over 80% of county residents according to a 2008 Florida Power and Light (FPL) poll.[69] Additionally, the power company proposed building the turbines in a location on a beach near a prior existing nuclear power plant owned by the company.[citation needed]

In the 1980s, a agency known as the Palm Beach County Expressway Authority was formed to develop a series of east/west highways to take people from suburban Palm Beach County into downtown West Palm Beach. This was done in anticipation of population growth that would happen over the next decades in Palm Beach County that would bring in more traffic. Many neighbors in areas such as Westgate and Lake Belvedere Estates strongly opposed this plan citing it would wipe out their neighborhoods. Ultimately the plan was revised to create SR-80 Boulevard into an express like roadway by eliminating traffic lights and overpassing other local roadways.

In 1959, when Deerfield officials learned that a developer building a neighborhood of large new homes planned to make houses available to African Americans, they issued a stop-work order. An intense debate began about racial integration, property values, and the good faith of the residents, community officials and builders. For a brief time, Deerfield was spotlighted in the national news as "the Little Rock of the North."[70] Supporters of integration were denounced and ostracized by residents. Eventually, the village passed a referendum to build parks on the property, thus putting an end to the housing development. Two model homes already partially completed were sold to village officials.[70] Otherwise, the land lay dormant for years before it was developed into what is now Mitchell Pool and Park and Jaycee Park. The first black family did not move into Deerfield until much later, and in years since Deerfield has seen a greater influx of minorities, including Jews, Asians, Greeks and others. This episode in Deerfield's history is described in But Not Next Door by Harry and David Rosen, both residents of Deerfield.

In the late 1990s a proposal for commuter rail on the Dan Patch Corridor between Minneapolis and Northfield was studied. In 2002, due to opposition from neighborhoods along the corridor, two state representatives from the suburbs of Bloomington and Edina passed a legislative ban not allowing further study, discussion, funding, and construction of the project. While the ban is still in place despite numerous attempts to repeal it, the two suburbs that sponsored the ban are now open to the proposal. Lakeville and St. Louis Park remain opposed to the project and repealing the ban.

In Long Island, various electrification and expansion projects of the Long Island Rail Road were canceled or substantially delayed due to the protests of people living near the railroad.

For example, portions of the LIRR's Main Line were supposed to get a third track to accommodate an expected increase in Long Island Rail Road ridership once the East Side Access project to Grand Central Terminal is completed, as well as to expand local and reverse peak service. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority had proposed to build a third Main Line track from Floral Park to Hicksville in the future.[71][72] Components of the project included purchasing properties in the track's right of way, eliminating grade crossings (in conjunction with NYSDOT), relocating existing stations, and reconfiguring Mineola Station. Fierce opposition for building a third track came from the villages of Floral Park, New Hyde Park, and Garden City,[73][74][75] which said the construction and the resulting increased train service will reduce the quality of life in their neighborhoods. The third track project was suspended indefinitely in 2008, but the MTA stressed that it was committed to eventually building the third track as a necessary part of the East Side Access project.[76] New funding for the project was included in a 2016 infrastructure improvement plan announced by New York GovernorAndrew Cuomo.[77] Governor Cuomo's announcement described measures intended to mitigate locals' concerns, including a change to the design so that it would require using land on only 50 properties including 20 homes, instead of the over 200 properties and 80 homes that would have been impacted under previous versions of the plan.[77] Despite the promise of mitigation efforts, several local politicians denounced the governor's plan within a day of its announcement; Floral Park's mayor told the New York Times that "we thought this was dead and buried",[78] while New Hyde Park's mayor pledged to "fight the governor vehemently on this" and a local state senator called the governor's plan "dead on arrival."[79]

In Port Washington, New York, a dispute broke out between the town of North Hempstead and the LIRR over a proposed yard expansion of Port Washington. To expand the yard, a parking lot belonging to the town would need to be made smaller by 40 parking spaces. Local Councilwoman Dina De Giorgio opposed the plan, saying that "The idea of storing these massive trains, adding two storage tracks to Port Washington, will completely ruin the character of the town."[80] However, the LIRR would be able to expand the yard without the agreement of North Hempstead by tearing up 140 parking spaces of its own parking lot, also adjacent to the station.[80]

Similarly, Opposition has killed any proposal to build a Bridge or Tunnel Across the Long Island Sound with some believing it will harm their communities with an influx of unwanted traffic as well as concerns regarding the environment and the amount of homes that would be cleared as a result. [81]